« Orange Home Improvement Holiday Update | Main | Just Four Days Until May Day March Madness! »

April 27, 2007

Comments

rebecca

It wasn't Carter who extralegally negotiated with Iran to sell them arms in exchange for KEEPING the hostages until after the election. That was your boy Reagan, and it was treason.
You should be ashamed of yourselves for using it to attack Carter.
Seriously, that is so cynical and rude.

Love,
Becca

redperegrine

"It wasn't Carter who extralegally negotiated with Iran to sell them arms in exchange for KEEPING the hostages until after the election. That was your boy Reagan, and it was treason."

Rebecca, I don't recall if that charge was ever proved - against Reagan advisor Clark as I recall. However Reagan did sell arms to the Iranians in exchange for the hostages taken in Lebanon. He finally admitted it. That darn hostage problem bedevils presidents of both parties, it seems.

But, Pat, are you really going to blame Carter for the worldwide rise of militant Islam? Well go ahead and prove it. In logic, the error in your reasoning is called "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Do you expect me to believe that Carter's errors and vacillations were so monumental that we couldn't kill off "global terrorism" during Reagan 1, Reagan 2, Bush Sr., or Clinton? Perhaps other factors, far beyond poor Jimmy's control were at work - factors that may finally resonate to even the less informed one hundred years from now.

Pat

You are misstating what I wrote: "Yes, all presidents subsequent share some blame..."

I hear Greenhut is writing Carter's comments.

Anybody,

Wasn't the fed Chairman Paul Volker, a Republican holdover that created the high interest rate mess for Carter?

Brett Nemeth

Duplojohn

I am willing to put up my knowledge of mideast politics against yours any day of the week. I don't know you, but you definitely sound delusional.

The peace treaty with Sadat was a good thing. But, it never led to a warm peace between Israel and Egypt. If Mubarek had the courage of Sadat, things would have been different.

Absent that, Carter never blew an opportunity to make a mistake during his presidency, and especially after his presidency. He has no moral compass. He is more sympathetic or supportive of the terrorists than of the democratic state of Israel. I have no clue how he rationalizes his viewpoint.

It appears you may fall into that same camp of thinking.

Vivian


"Hung the Shah of Iran out to dry"
My statement earlier comes from having worked with a young Iranian girl whose family had escaped from Iran after the fall of the Shah. Her father, who had been in the Army of the Shah, however had been killed before friends got the rest of the family out of Iran. I imagine because her father was in the Shah's army and had been killed by the subsequent "administration" if that's what you want to call the ensuing chaos and murder, this girl was more prone to support the Shah. She told me stories of when she was a young girl how some of the "out of control" or "anti-Shah" citizens who wanted complete Islamic Law to saturate (extremists)and put women back in the burqa or burka, and take them out of school and again repress the females in Iran to nothing but servants without a voice.
Her family and much of their society at the time did support the westernization/modernization of their country but the extremists outnumbered them. Most of them were then slain pitifully and women set out on the streets to starve or worse.
The Shah had his own abuses; which were identified as usually having to do with the repression of the terrorists who then publicized his "abuses" as abuses to the public in general.
I'm not an expert and I didn't live there. I have the story of one girl whose family lived it. They would have preferred the rule of the Shah over what is there now. That is all I know. And that Jimmy Carter helped to bring the Shah down, to me is NOT a good thing.

Pat

"Seriously, that is so cynical and rude."

A lecture from the OC Weekly on decorum in political discourse? Pot. Kettle. Black.

redperegrine

"They would have preferred the rule of the Shah over what is there now. That is all I know. And that Jimmy Carter helped to bring the Shah down, to me is NOT a good thing."

Yes, indeed the Shah had a veneer of supporters who profitted from his rule. And of course they would prefer his rule - they went into exile along with the Shah himself. But as we all know Iran was (and is) a huge nation with tens of millions of people, many of whom were less than enthusiastic about his reign.

It's interesting also that the occuaption of the US embassy occurred after Carter let the Shah into the US for medical reasons - a humanitarian act of pro-tyrant behavior that really doomed his own tenuous grip on the presidency.

BTW, Pat I got a kck out of your comment about what happened at the Soviet Embassy. Are you seriously blamming poor Jimmy because the Marine detachment didn't shoot the attackers "in the face"? Why not blame the Marine sergeant in charge of defending the embassy?

Brett, you accused me of "playing" with your words. If you write more carefully nobody can play with them. You originally commented:

"I can't think of any former president who was more clueless on foreign policy. There's not even a close second."

There will be in two years.

Jubal

Wasn't the fed Chairman Paul Volker, a Republican holdover that created the high interest rate mess for Carter?

No, Volker was a Carter appointee, who was subsequently re-appointed by President Reagan.

DanC

Matt --
a late reply to the comment about being out of the mainstream by preferring Carter to W.

This 2005 Zogby poll suggests its you out of the mainstream: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1020

And sine its about 2 years later, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the American people would now prefer to have Kerry in the Oval Office compared to Bush.

Jubal

How does a 2-year old poll about Bush's popularity prove Americans would trade America 2007 for America 1980?

And sine its about 2 years later, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the American people would now prefer to have Kerry in the Oval Office compared to Bush.

Right now, a majority would probably also prefer Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower or Abraham Lincoln. So what?

DanC

Matt --
Since Bill Clinton is very much alive and the other three are dead, by all means, let's bring Big Bill back. Back to the days of a expanding economy, a shrinking national debt, a surplus instead of a deficit, allies (remember them?) and smaller government.

I would gladly take back the America of 1980 in exchange for the mess made by this president and the Republican Congress.

Back to the original point of the post, no matter how bad you think Jimmy Carter was, Bush 43 is worse.

Jubal

I would gladly take back the America of 1980 in exchange for the mess made by this president and the Republican Congress.

You can have it, Dan -- and I'll bet 90% of informed Americans who either remember or know what it was like then agree with me.

Back to the original point of the post, no matter how bad you think Jimmy Carter was, Bush 43 is worse.

That is demonstrably wrong.

Since Bill Clinton is very much alive and the other three are dead, by all means, let's bring Big Bill back. Back to the days of a expanding economy, a shrinking national debt, a surplus instead of a deficit, allies (remember them?) and smaller government.

Funny how you liberals often act as though as all those things flowed purely and solely from the fact that Clinton physically occupied the White House.

DanC

I would gladly take back the America of 1980 in exchange for the mess made by this president and the Republican Congress.

You can have it, Dan -- and I'll bet 90% of informed Americans who either remember or know what it was like then agree with me.
--I'm older than you; and have lived in other parts of the country, outside the bubble of OC. You can bet 90%; and you'd lose.

Back to the original point of the post, no matter how bad you think Jimmy Carter was, Bush 43 is worse.

That is demonstrably wrong.
Prove it. Carter's low approval numbers are something Bush can only hope to attain. All presidents have their challenges, but to say Bush 43 is a better president than Carter was is simply denial.

Since Bill Clinton is very much alive and the other three are dead, by all means, let's bring Big Bill back. Back to the days of a expanding economy, a shrinking national debt, a surplus instead of a deficit, allies (remember them?) and smaller government.

Funny how you liberals often act as though as all those things flowed purely and solely from the fact that Clinton physically occupied the White House.

Hells bells; you guys have no problem attributing everything good that happened in the 80s to Reagan. Clinton was a pretty good president in spite of the hostile Congress.

Pat

As to the golden Clinton years (and I worked on his campaign), let's not forget how peacefully and diplomatically he handled the 1993 WTC attack. Those jail sentences really scared the heck out of all the jihadis back home, didn't they?

As to Carter as CIC, all I remember is the "rescue" mission that he set up and botched leading to the deaths of eight Marines and the resignation of Cyrus Vance. And, yes, our Marines at the embassy should have killed the "students" as they attacked.

"Back to the original point of the post, no matter how bad you think Jimmy Carter was, Bush 43 is worse."

You're comparing apples and oranges, pre- and post-terror worlds. It's sort of a neener, neener argument. If you like Jimmy, fine. But abre los ojos, it's not 1979 anymore. If his record is so good, why won't he answer questions, from students or equals like Dershowitz?

Jubal

Dan:

--I'm older than you; and have lived in other parts of the country, outside the bubble of OC. You can bet 90%; and you'd lose.

I'm not young as you think and I've lived in other parts of the country as well. You're are living on a different planet if you think you could convince anyone outside the hard-core Left to make that swap.

Prove it. Carter's low approval numbers are something Bush can only hope to attain. All presidents have their challenges, but to say Bush 43 is a better president than Carter was is simply denial.

You're certainly fond of citing polls as being proof, aren't you? As you wish.

Carter hit 21% approval at this nadir -- lower than Nixon ever hit.

As for proof -- have you been reading this thread? For starters, try comparing the American economy of 1977-1980 with the American economy of 2001-present. Would anyone in their right mind want to trade them?

Or the foreign scene. Compare the period 1977-1980 -- when America's power and prestige was at it's post-war nadir -- with today, where American pre-eminence is unquestioned.

And Dan, I'm afraid your assertion that Carter was a better president than George W. makes you the person in denial. I doubt you could find 1 credible historian in 100 who'd agree with your assessment. It's ludicrous.

Long-time politico

I hope that some UCI students are following this discussion. There are some terrific questions to pose to the ex-President regarding his stewardship of our foreign policy regarding the Panama Canal, the abandonment of the Shah and its results, Afghanistan, and so on. Let's hope the student body of UCI and the faculty will encourage free speech and an open and healthy dialogue with former President Carter.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories